We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 11-20 of 458

Eleventh Circuit rules that hedge fund investors’ claims are not derivative

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 21 2008

The Eleventh Circuit recently reversed in part and upheld in part a ruling by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissing a complaint brought by investors in a hedge fund and a corporation

NYSE Arca proposes options rule amendments regarding anti-money laundering compliance programs

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 21 2008

On October 28, NYSE Arca, Inc. filed proposed rule changes with the Securities and Exchange Commission to amend NYSE Arca Options Rule 11.19, which addresses anti-money laundering compliance programs (AMLCPs

FSA reiterates concern over spreading rumors

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • November 21 2008

The UK Financial Services Authority (FSA) devoted most of issue 30 of its Market Watch newsletter (released on November 19) to emphasizing its concerns over the spreading of false or misleading rumors about listed companies

NYSE proposes changes to streamline odd-lot order handling guidance

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 5 2008

On November 6, New York Stock Exchange LLC (NYSE) filed a proposal with the Securities and Exchange Commission to update NYSE Rule 411(b) concerning odd-lot order handling requirements, particularly by adding a new subparagraph to explicitly address fraudulent or manipulative conduct, such as wash sales

Court dismisses portion of securities fraud claims

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 5 2008

In a securities fraud class action brought against a publicly traded company and its officers, directors and major shareholders, a federal district court granted in part defendants' motion to dismiss claims asserted under Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5

FSA arrests two in boiler room criminal investigation

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • November 9 2007

On November 2, the Financial Services Authority announced the arrest of two men on October 31 in connection with an ongoing FSA investigation into overseas boiler room activities

District court dismisses securities fraud claim against company’s auditor

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 16 2007

Granting defendant auditor’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ class action securities fraud claims, a federal district court held, among other things, that defendant could not be found liable under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or Rule 10b-5 for statements that the auditor’s client but not the auditor made to the public

Court compels broker-dealer to arbitrate investors’ claims

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 16 2007

Finding that investors were “customers” of a retail broker-dealer for purposes of the NASD’s Code of Arbitration, a federal district court compelled the broker-dealer to arbitrate the investors’ securities fraud claims

CESR reports on EU market abuse powers

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • European Union
  • -
  • November 30 2007

On November 22, the EU Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR) published a report setting out the differing sanctions available in EU Member States under the EU Market Abuse Directive (MAD

Market manipulation may be proved by manipulative intent

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 7 2007

A New York District Court has denied a defendant’s motion for summary judgment and held that a showing of an investor’s intent to manipulate the market in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 could be enough to prove market manipulation without any additional deceptive or fraudulent conduct